It's almost as if they were educated in gov't-run schools, and brainwashed to accepting what these people say from a young age.

Gallup isn't government run.

Also, I went to a private school, moron

I'm not referring to your numbers or education.

I'm referring to partisan apologist that believe numbers put out by the state, whether they're about unemployment, tax revenue, the efficacy if tax cuts, etc. These people just won't get it through their thick skulls that the government does not - never has, never will - act in their interests.

All2morrowsparTs:o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.

Bush is not up for re-election.F(Fast and Furiuos was started during that administration.)

1. How do we view/account for UNDERemployment as well as Unemployment? Or is someone with a shiatload of experience and qualifications and a degree losing their job in their industry and being forced to work part time at Home Depot not counted?

2. What percentage of the jobs filled are with people overqualified for their jobs?

It's great to throw out all these statistics, but unless you're growth also includes an upward trend in pay and so forth, then there's also something wrong.

Also, our economy and level of consumerism cannot be sustained if the population continues to trend downwards in pay scale and such.

If someone has to work 3 part time jobs to make ends meet do they count that as 3 jobs for job creation purposes even if it's only 1 person doing all three jobs? If he loses all 3 jobs do they count him 3 times for unemployed statistics or do they only count him once?

The reason I ask is because when they count green jobs they counted a bus driver who drove a bus powered by CNG as a job created but didn't count his old job of driving a diesel bus as a job lost when they converted his bus to CNG.

duh: Sound used to imitate a mentally retarded person as an answer to an obvious remark or question. The person using "duh" is thereby sarcastically indicating that he/she is not retarded and the forgoing remark or question is obvious to him/her.

Gabrielmot:mccallcl: Slampig: The unemployed people I know all tend to have something holding them back, like physical issues, drug addiction, or they think they're just too good for whatever job they can get.

If you are reading this and unemployed:

LEARN HOW TO PROGRAM ANDROID APPLICATIONS

You can do it at the library, or with the POS netbook you use to look at porn. It will take two months, then publish your fart app to Google Play. Then update your resume and watch your phone blow up. There is not a single city in the US that doesn't have dozens of android developer jobs open. $65K to start.

There, problem solved.

Found one.

Houston, TX

A cursory glance at dice.com shows 14 listings for "Android", of those 6 look like legit mobile programming jobs. Of those, I'd expect more than 2 months experience is needed.

Of course if you have a better site than dice.com for programming jobs (Linked-In is one I guess, but monster.com is not), I'd love to hear it.

/employed, just always keeping tabs on the market

Do what I said and you'll have an IT job when you're done. I chose Android because the need is extraordinary, the resources are free (eclipse, sdk, low-powered windows or Linux computer) and the know-how is freely available online. If you have an app in Google Play, no one cares how long you've been doing it.

I work for an organization trying to hire an American Android developer and we're seriously considering looking overseas. The dev resources are impossible to find here.

Worst-case scenario, use your abundant free time to learn a potentially lucrative new side business. The new manufacturing sector in the US is software manufacturing and we lead the world in it. Get on board :)

Yes, the real unemployment rate (unemployed+underemployed) is around %14 right now. To add insult to injury, we lost a whole lot of high and middle income jobs during the recession, but the jobs that have replaced them are almost all low wage jobs... We need to create jobs at twice the rate we are, and a significant portion of them need to be well paying...

/voting for Romney//duh

Average hourly pay is the highest it's ever been. If that's why you were voting for Romney, rethink your position.

You partisan fools are just so amusing.Deaf by the sound of your own wheels, you happily display your stupid allegiance to something toxic you cannot possibly understand, and yet, you BELIEVE! You allign yourself with the scum of the Earth and claim it is high ground.

You actually went to one of the dumbest people on the internet to get your talking points. Nice tony.

We'll see in November.....

I'll spare you another lecture on the irrelevancy of the 7.8% in a stagnant economy. The number to watch to know how people are really doing is the larger measure of those unemployed, underemployed and those who have given up work, which held steady at 14.7 percent.

snocone:You partisan fools are just so amusing.Deaf by the sound of your own wheels, you happily display your stupid allegiance to something toxic you cannot possibly understand, and yet, you BELIEVE! You allign yourself with the scum of the Earth and claim it is high ground.

/amusing

Can you clarify for me here? I need to mark you in "partisan troll republican" or "partisan troll democrat" and I can't figure out from this which one. Are you saying the Dumbocrat Party Obamabots are fools aligned with scum of the Earth or are you saying the Limbaugh-swilling Republitards are fools aligned with scum of the Earth?

unlikely:snocone: You partisan fools are just so amusing.Deaf by the sound of your own wheels, you happily display your stupid allegiance to something toxic you cannot possibly understand, and yet, you BELIEVE! You allign yourself with the scum of the Earth and claim it is high ground.

/amusing

Can you clarify for me here? I need to mark you in "partisan troll republican" or "partisan troll democrat" and I can't figure out from this which one. Are you saying the Dumbocrat Party Obamabots are fools aligned with scum of the Earth or are you saying the Limbaugh-swilling Republitards are fools aligned with scum of the Earth?

Your frothy wrath is too non-specific to tell.

That would be both idiot camps, sir.Neither warrant any support.

It is all just Theatre to distract/keep you from solving the political problem by hanging da bums.

If you REALLY think the economy is good and the unemployment numbers aren't down just because people have ran out of unemployment checks just look at the jobs "section" of your local dead tree newspaper. Its a page these days instead of a section.

Open your eyes and look around the world.The World Economy is in de terlit.USA is comparitively doing quite well.And we have the bricks and mortar to weather this Bank Job.And it is the biggest bank heist in history.And we have BIG OIL and COAL going for us.Like it or not, it does save our bacon.

Oldiron_79:If you REALLY think the economy is good and the unemployment numbers aren't down just because people have ran out of unemployment checks just look at the jobs "section" of your local dead tree newspaper. Its a page these days instead of a section.

FYI, that's not how unemployment is calculated. It wasn't when Dubya was crowing about the unemployment rate going down either.

We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we've lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office. If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11%. And the U-6 is at 15 to 17 percent.

Pretty soon we will have only a few million people employed and "full employment" in this country. The economy is creating so few jobs that millions are staying out of the labor market, thereby prevent the unemployment rate from soaring. In September we created a measly 114,000 jobs, but the rate declined to 7.8 percent.

Consider that if labor force participation had held even since January (when it was 8.3 percent), the jobless rate would be 8.4 percent. If the job participation rate were the same as when Barack Obama took office, the rate would be 10.7 percent.

tony41454:We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we've lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office. If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11%. And the U-6 is at 15 to 17 percent.

Pretty soon we will have only a few million people employed and "full employment" in this country. The economy is creating so few jobs that millions are staying out of the labor market, thereby prevent the unemployment rate from soaring. In September we created a measly 114,000 jobs, but the rate declined to 7.8 percent.

Consider that if labor force participation had held even since January (when it was 8.3 percent), the jobless rate would be 8.4 percent. If the job participation rate were the same as when Barack Obama took office, the rate would be 10.7 percent.

So you are just regurgitating Romney talking points now? Also why do you want America to fail?

tony41454:I'll spare you another lecture on the irrelevancy of the 7.8% in a stagnant economy. The number to watch to know how people are really doing is the larger measure of those unemployed, underemployed and those who have given up work, which held steady at 14.7 percent.

Yes, the real unemployment rate (unemployed+underemployed) is around %14 right now. To add insult to injury, we lost a whole lot of high and middle income jobs during the recession, but the jobs that have replaced them are almost all low wage jobs... We need to create jobs at twice the rate we are, and a significant portion of them need to be well paying...

/voting for Romney//duh

Average hourly pay is the highest it's ever been. If that's why you were voting for Romney, rethink your position.

The link you gave me is busted, but I think that this is the graph you meant:

It looks like this metric was not effected at all by the depression, and I don't know why, but the economy is definitely in the crapper, and I will not be using this one metric to evaluate the health of this economy.

I was watching the debate on CNN the other day, and afterwards they put up a graph showing the percentage of low, medium, and high wage jobs in the economy as a percentage of the economy, and then showed how that changed before, during and after the depression. I cant find it right now, but it was really interesting in a bad way...

legalgus:Large idiot Fark factor at work. Sorry, since when is 7.8% good? Maybe to Obama kool aid drinkers. And, yes, those who have stopped looking should be factored in bringing the number to almost 11%. Open your eyes and get a grip.

Halli:tony41454: We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we've lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office. If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11%. And the U-6 is at 15 to 17 percent.

Pretty soon we will have only a few million people employed and "full employment" in this country. The economy is creating so few jobs that millions are staying out of the labor market, thereby prevent the unemployment rate from soaring. In September we created a measly 114,000 jobs, but the rate declined to 7.8 percent.

Consider that if labor force participation had held even since January (when it was 8.3 percent), the jobless rate would be 8.4 percent. If the job participation rate were the same as when Barack Obama took office, the rate would be 10.7 percent.

So you are just regurgitating Romney talking points now? Also why do you want America to fail?

tony41454: I'll spare you another lecture on the irrelevancy of the 7.8% in a stagnant economy. The number to watch to know how people are really doing is the larger measure of those unemployed, underemployed and those who have given up work, which held steady at 14.7 percent.

Why exactly does U-6 matter now when it has never done so before?

Because the U6 number has not been this high for this long for a very very long time.... And because of the metrics they use for the U3 number, it can be very misleading... the U6 number is a much more accurate indication of the general employment situation... the U6 hovered around 8% during bush, but is now twice that... the U3 number would have you believing that the employment situation is twice as good as it really is. Even during bush, the difference between the U3 and U6 numbers was about 4 points. The difference now between those two numbers is about 8 points. So not only are things twice as bad as before, but the difference between them is also twice as great, which means that the U3 number is lying twice as much as it used to...

Maul555:Because the U6 number has not been this high for this long for a very very long time.... And because of the metrics they use for the U3 number, it can be very misleading... the U6 number is a much more accurate indication of the general employment situation... the U6 hovered around 8% during bush, but is now twice that... the U3 number would have you believing that the employment situation is twice as good as it really is. Even during bush, the difference between the U3 and U6 numbers was about 4 points. The difference now between those two numbers is about 8 points. So not only are things twice as bad as before, but the difference between them is also twice as great, which means that the U3 number is lying twice as much as it used to...

Ahh because it looks worse for Obama. Well at least you are honest about it.

Halli:Maul555: Because the U6 number has not been this high for this long for a very very long time.... And because of the metrics they use for the U3 number, it can be very misleading... the U6 number is a much more accurate indication of the general employment situation... the U6 hovered around 8% during bush, but is now twice that... the U3 number would have you believing that the employment situation is twice as good as it really is. Even during bush, the difference between the U3 and U6 numbers was about 4 points. The difference now between those two numbers is about 8 points. So not only are things twice as bad as before, but the difference between them is also twice as great, which means that the U3 number is lying twice as much as it used to...

Ahh because it looks worse for Obama. Well at least you are honest about it.

No... wtf? no!

The U6 number is what the world is really like. the U3 number is the delusionaly rosy picture that the government paints. That gap there means that the government is painting an increasingly delusional picture with the U3 number. That widening gap beans that we are lying to ourselves more and more...

Maul555:. the U6 hovered around 8% during bush, but is now twice that...

Your own graph shows it was well over 8% during Bush's entire first term, only touched eight shortly mid way through the second and was on the way up when he was tossed out of office. The same graph shows U6 immediately doubled shortly after as a result of Bush's failed policies and has since fallen at roughly the same rate as it did during Bush. Your conclusion is it's Obama's fault and the solution Romney's return to Bush policies?

Maul555:To put this another wayHalli: Maul555: Because the U6 number has not been this high for this long for a very very long time.... And because of the metrics they use for the U3 number, it can be very misleading... the U6 number is a much more accurate indication of the general employment situation... the U6 hovered around 8% during bush, but is now twice that... the U3 number would have you believing that the employment situation is twice as good as it really is. Even during bush, the difference between the U3 and U6 numbers was about 4 points. The difference now between those two numbers is about 8 points. So not only are things twice as bad as before, but the difference between them is also twice as great, which means that the U3 number is lying twice as much as it used to...

Ahh because it looks worse for Obama. Well at least you are honest about it.

No... wtf? no!

[i206.photobucket.com image 850x414]

The U6 number is what the world is really like. the U3 number is the delusionaly rosy picture that the government paints. That gap there means that the government is painting an increasingly delusional picture with the U3 number. That widening gap beans that we are lying to ourselves more and more...

neenerist:Maul555: . the U6 hovered around 8% during bush, but is now twice that...

Your own graph shows it was well over 8% during Bush's entire first term, only touched eight shortly mid way through the second and was on the way up when he was tossed out of office. The same graph shows U6 immediately doubled shortly after as a result of Bush's failed policies and has since fallen at roughly the same rate as it did during Bush. Your conclusion is it's Obama's fault and the solution Romney's return to Bush policies?

Quit your derping... I was going off of memory and did not have the graph in front of me.... so it hovered a bit above 8% on average instead of exactly 8%... You are arguing over semantics while ignoring the central point.

Mind the gap because you are obviously in danger of stumbling over it...

Halli:Maul555: To put this another wayHalli: Maul555: Because the U6 number has not been this high for this long for a very very long time.... And because of the metrics they use for the U3 number, it can be very misleading... the U6 number is a much more accurate indication of the general employment situation... the U6 hovered around 8% during bush, but is now twice that... the U3 number would have you believing that the employment situation is twice as good as it really is. Even during bush, the difference between the U3 and U6 numbers was about 4 points. The difference now between those two numbers is about 8 points. So not only are things twice as bad as before, but the difference between them is also twice as great, which means that the U3 number is lying twice as much as it used to...

Ahh because it looks worse for Obama. Well at least you are honest about it.

No... wtf? no!

[i206.photobucket.com image 850x414]

The U6 number is what the world is really like. the U3 number is the delusionaly rosy picture that the government paints. That gap there means that the government is painting an increasingly delusional picture with the U3 number. That widening gap beans that we are lying to ourselves more and more...

So U6 should be used because Obama bad. Why was it never used before?

You are just being a troll now. go crawl back under your bridge. BTW, do you still beat your wife?